coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Parola.
5.  The applicant requested sickness benefits due to his incapacity for work for the period from 3 June 2002 until 31 December 2002. On 10 June 2002 the applicant’s doctor stated in a certificate that he was incapable of working until 31 December 2002.
6.  The Social Insurance Institution (kansaneläkelaitos - KELA, folkpensionsanstalten – FPA, later “KELA”) rejected his request in two decisions of 28 August 2002. In the decisions his disability was described in detail, but he was not considered incapable of working. The decision was based on section 14 of the Sickness Insurance Act (sairasvakuutuslaki,  sjukförsäkringslag 364/1963).
7.  On 13 September 2002 the applicant appealed to the Social Insurance Board (sosiaalivakuutuslautakunta, socialförsäkringsnämd). His appeal was rejected on 24 April 2003. In the decision no reference was made to the certificates provided by the applicant’s doctor. It stated that the applicant had been given an opportunity to reply to the KELA’s statement, but it did not give any details of the statement nor did it state whether the applicant had replied.
8.  On 4 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Appellate Board for Social Insurance (tarkastuslautakunta, prövningsnämnden, later the “Appellate Board”). His appeal was rejected on 15 January 2004. In the decision no reference was made to the statements by the applicant’s doctors or the report from the time he spent in rehabilitation between 8 January and 28 January 2003. Like the decision of the Social Insurance Board, it stated that the applicant had had the opportunity to reply to the KELA’s statement, but failed to specify the content of the statement and whether the applicant had replied to it.
9.  On 1 March 2004 the applicant requested information on the documents in his file with the KELA. The documents contained several statements by a medical expert, requested by the KELA at various times. The statements were dated 10 April, 6 June, 22 August and 17 October 2002 and 18 June 2003. None of the authorities had previously provided him with copies of the statements.
10.  According to information supplied by the Government at the Court’s request, the medical statements in question were also included in the case file of the Appellate Board.
5.  The applicant association was registered in 1990 and is located in the town of Kakhovka, Kherson region.
6.  In 1990 the applicant association entered into a contract with the Construction Department of the Kherson Regional State Administration (“the Department”; Управління капітального будівництва Херсонської обласної державної адміністрації), according to which the latter undertook to construct a block of flats for the applicant association’s members.
7.  In January 2002 the applicant association instituted proceedings in the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region against the Department, seeking compensation for defaulting on the construction project.
8.  On 5 April 2002 the court found in part for the applicant association and ordered the Department to pay it 144,066.74 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation. On 27 March 2003 the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region quashed the decision of the first-instance court and adopted a new decision, ordering the Department to pay the applicant association UAH 2,227,269.40 in compensation.
9.  On 20 June 2003 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
10.  On 15 July 2003 the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region issued a writ of execution for the decision of the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region of 27 March 2003.
11.  On 11 August 2003 the Suvorovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings.
12.  By decisions of 22 September and 22 December 2003, the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for being lodged out of time.
13.  The decision of 27 March 2003 remains unenforced to the present date with reference to the debtor’s lack of funds and realisable assets.
5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Pavlograd.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 17 November 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and a certain Mr V.G. on suspicion of robbery. On the same date the applicant was arrested and detained.
8.  On 20 November 2000 the applicant was formally charged with involvement in a robbery. On the same date a decision was taken to remand him in custody pending trial based, in particular, on the seriousness of the charge against him. Subsequently, the applicant was indicted on several additional charges of robbery and theft, committed on his own and in association with a certain Mr M.M.
9.  On 3 July 2002 the Pavlograd City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) convicted the applicant of several offences of robbery and theft, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
10.  The applicant appealed. On 6 December 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 3 July 2002, finding that the conviction was not based on sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal ordered that further pre-trial investigations be carried out. It also decided, without giving any reasons, to extend the applicant’s detention pending the additional investigations.
11.  On an unspecified date the prosecution submitted the applicant’s case to the City Court for a fresh trial.
12.  On 6 May 2003 the City Court found at the preparatory hearing in absence of the applicant that the evidence gathered was insufficient and that the instructions of the Court of Appeal had not been followed. The case was remitted for fresh pre-trial investigations. The court also ordered that the applicant should remain in custody, without, however, giving any reasons for this decision. The prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision to remit the case for further investigations.
13.  On 4 July 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 6 May 2003 and referred the case to the City Court for trial. The Court of Appeal also decided, without giving any reasons, that the applicant was to remain in custody.
14.  On 1 April 2004 the City Court convicted the applicant of theft and robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in detention.
15.  That judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 9 June 2004 and by the Supreme Court on 17 March 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, Lviv Region, Ukraine.
5.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Chervonograd Town Court against the Lvivvugillya State Enterprise, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure of the defendant to provide the applicant with an apartment, to which he had been entitled according to an agreement between them.
6.  On 10 November 2003 the court partly found for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 42,000 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] in compensation.
7.  That judgment became final and on 11 December 2003 the Chervonograd Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 30 December 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated in accordance with the 2005 Law of Ukraine “On Measures to Ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and Energy Sector Enterprises”.
9.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the village of Sheludkovka, the Kharkiv Region, Ukraine.
5. The applicant’s mother owned a plot of land and an old house. On unspecified date the applicant started constructing a new house on this plot without a construction permit and other necessary documentation. On 25 April 1995 the applicant’s mother died. The plot of land and the old house had been transferred shortly before her death under a donation agreement to Mr E.Ts.
6.  On 29 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Mr. E.Ts. (“the defendant”), the Sheludkovsky Local Council (“the local council”) and the Zmiyiv State Notary Office (“the notary office”) in the Zmiyiv Court. She challenged the donation agreement and claimed her property right to the unfinished building. She also challenged the resolutions of the local council by which the latter had refused to provide her with the plot of land on which she had started the above construction works.
7.  On 12 April 2002 the Zmiyiv Court dismissed the applicant’s claims concerning annulment of the donation agreement and the local council’s resolutions. The court further terminated the proceedings in respect of her claim for the unfinished building. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 17 July 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal amended the judgment. The court of appeal considered the applicant’s claim concerning the unfinished building and dismissed it since the applicant had conducted construction works without the necessary permit. The court of appeal upheld the rest of the judgment.
9.  On 13 August 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 3 December 2002 the Supreme Court left the applicant’s appeal without consideration since she had failed to comply with procedural requirements prescribed by law.
10. On 15 January 2003 the applicant rectified the shortcomings and re-lodged her appeal in cassation. On 3 September 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.
11.  According to the records provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings falling within the Court’s competence ratione temporis, of thirty listed hearings eleven were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear and two due to his requests for adjournment. Two hearings were adjourned since the defendant and the representative of the State notary office failed to appear. The domestic courts took no steps to ensure the defendant’s presence in the court. One hearing was adjourned due to the failure of the representative of the local council to appear. Three hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s request for adjournment, and three due to the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to appear.
12.  Most hearings were scheduled at intervals from several days to two months. No hearings took place between 8 July 1998 and 11 May 1999, from 18 August 1999 and 12 January 2000, and from 1 June and 15 October 2001.
3.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.
4.  On 13 December 2001 the Korolyovsky District Court of Zhytomyr ordered the Lyonteks open joint-stock company, in which the State held 51% of the share capital, to pay the applicant 2,833.9[7] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. On 18 January 2002 the Korolyovsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment.
5.  On 3 April 2002 the same court, following the applicant’s request, adopted a procedural decision, in which it held that the total amount of the award of 13 December 2001 had been wrongly summed up. It found that the correct total amount of the payments due to the applicant was UAH 2,807.2[8][2].
6.  On 11 October 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for the failure to enforce the judgment of 13 December 2001.
7.  On 1 July 2003 the court ruled against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service.
8.  On 4 November 2003 and 18 October 2006 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld the judgment of 1 July 2003.
9.  The judgment was enforced in full on 23 December 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Comrat.
5.  On 29 November 2006, during a press conference, the Governor of the Gagauzia region of Moldova, Mr G.T., made a statement which the applicant considered defamatory. He instituted civil defamation proceedings against G.T. which ended on 19 December 2001 with a final judgment of the Court of Appeal in his favour. The court found the statement defamatory and ordered G.T. to retract it and to pay the applicant non-pecuniary damages of 122 euros (EUR).
6.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant and, on 1 March 2002, requested that the judgment be enforced, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 10 below). However, in May 2002, a bailiff refused to enforce the judgment on the ground that the defendant did not have a domicile in Comrat (the main town in Gagauzia region). It does not appear that the enforcement was formally discontinued by a court decision, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 10 below).
7.  In the meantime, defendant G.T. ended his mandate as Governor of the Gagauzia region and, in February 2001, was elected MP in the Moldovan Parliament on the Communist Party ticket – this is the party in power to date. In 2002 Mr G.T. was re-elected Governor of the Gagauzia region also as a representative of the Communist Party and simultaneously appointed to the central Government of Moldova. He occupied the above positions until 2006 and 2007 respectively and had offices both in the building of the Government in Chişinău and in Comrat.
8.  According to the applicant, he complained on several occasions to the competent authorities about the non-enforcement of the final judgment favourable to him, however to no avail. He sent the Court a copy of a letter dated 24 January 2005 he had written to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice forwarded his letter to the Comrat Office of Enforcement of Judgment but no action followed. Further correspondence took place in 2008, but also to no avail.
9.  The final judgment of 19 December 2001 has not been enforced to date.
5.  The applicant was born in Cellino San Marco in Italy and lives in Berlin.
6.  On 11 November 1998 the applicant underwent a kidney transplant operation at the Charité Medical University in Berlin. Following complications after the operation, the transplanted kidney had to be removed and the applicant underwent a further operation.
7.  On 9 May 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Charité Medical University claiming that they were medically liable for the unsuccessful kidney transplant. In particular, she requested the court to award her an adequate amount of damages for pain and suffering (Schmerzensgeld) and to declare that the defendant was liable for all future damage to her health (including latent damage) and any stress, worry or inconvenience caused by the defendant’s alleged malpractice.
8.  On 16 October 2001 the Berlin Regional Court ordered an urological expert report on the question whether the defendant, due to alleged insufficient post-operative treatment, had discovered the applicant’s urinary leak too late. On 15 November 2001 the Regional Court appointed the first expert who informed the court on 5 December 2001 that he would be unable to prepare the report.
9.  On 22 January 2002 the Regional Court requested the Lower Saxony Medical Association to designate an expert. On 28 March 2002 the Regional Court commissioned a second expert and set him a time-limit of three months for the preparation of his report. Between October 2002 and March 2003 the court inquired of the expert three times as to whether he had prepared his report. On 29 April 2003 it ordered him to deliver the latter within six weeks and announced its intention to impose a fine on him in case of non-compliance with that time-limit.
10.  On 26 August 2003 the Regional Court imposed a fine on the second expert, discharged him, and appointed a third expert. On 13 October 2003 the court set him a time-limit of six months for the preparation of his report. On 24 November 2003 the Regional Court requested the applicant to pay a further advance on the expert’s costs which the applicant paid on 19 December 2003. On 23 and 30 September 2004 the Regional Court extended the time-limit for the preparation of the expert’s report until 17 November 2004 after the expert had informed the court that his assistant whom he had entrusted with the preparation of the report had unexpectedly become unavailable. On 6 December 2004 the Regional Court received the expert report dated 12 November 2004. The expert invoiced for 28 hours’ work in the preparation of his report.
11.   On 4 February 2005 the applicant requested the Regional Court to extend the time-limit for the submission of her comments on the report. On 22 February 2005 she submitted her comments.
12.  On 10 May 2005, after having held a hearing, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action as being unfounded.
13.  On 27 May 2005 the judgment was served on the applicant’s representative.
5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lived in İzmir.
6.  On 23 February 1998 the applicant bought a plot of land (plot no. 536 in the Ulucak village, in the Menemen district of İzmir) from the heirs of V.G.
7.  On 13 July 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture (“the Ministry”) brought an action before the Menemen Civil Court, requesting the annulment of the title deed of the applicant to plot no. 536 and its registration in the Treasury's name, claiming that it had had actual possession of this land since 1966. The Ministry primarily relied on Article 38 of the Expropriation Act (Law no. 2942). The Ministry also alleged that an expropriation had been effected in relation to the said land in 1966 and that V.G. had received compensation for it. However, the land register had not been amended due to an administrative error.
8.  On 20 December 2000 the Menemen Civil Court accepted the request of the Ministry of Agriculture and ordered that the land be registered in favour of the Treasury in accordance with Article 38 of Law no. 2942. In its judgment, the first-instance court noted that the Ministry had been in actual possession of this land for more than twenty years and that the applicant had been aware of this fact when he had bought the plot.
9.  The applicant appealed.
10.  On 17 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 December 2000.
11.  The applicant requested rectification of the decision of 17 September 2001.
12.  On 24 December 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request.
13.  On 4 January 2002 the Court of Cassation's decision was served on the applicant.
14.  On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled Article 38 of Law no. 2942.
2.  The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in Eğil.
3.  On 3 April 1997 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated 6 plots of land (plots nos. 546, 529, 503, 507, 527 and 523) belonging to the applicant in the Kale district of Eğil in Diyarbakır. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum fixed thereby was paid to the applicant on 19 November 1997.
4.  On 8 December 1997 the applicant lodged a case with the Eğil Civil Court, requesting additional compensation. The first-instance court decided to deal separately with parcel no. 523 due to the different nature of that parcel.
5.  On 6 December 1999 the Eğil Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of 501,377,750 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at a rate of 30% from 8 December 1997 to 1 January 1998, and a rate of 50% from 1 January 1998 onwards.
6.  On 9 October 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
7.  On 13 June 2001 the administration paid the applicant TRL 1,586,220,000 in additional compensation together with interest.
8.  On 17 May 2000 the Eğil Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of TRL 11,267,083,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 18 February 1998.
9.  On 12 February 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
10.  On 27 November 2001 the administration paid the applicant TRL 35,240,270,000 in additional compensation together with interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 2 and 3 May 1995 the applicant deposited a total of 1,537,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) with Global A.Ş., a private brokerage firm, and requested the firm to buy Treasury bonds for her.
6.  In September 1995 the applicant contacted B.G., the broker to whom she had given the money, and asked her whether she had bought the Treasury bonds on her behalf. B.G. informed the applicant, by way of a handwritten document, that she had.
7.  On 15 March 1996 when the applicant went to the office of Global A.Ş., she learned that B.G. had used her money not to buy Treasury bonds but to buy stocks, which had lost their value and therefore the firm had caused her to lose money.
8.  On 30 September 1996 the applicant brought a case against Global A.Ş. and B.G. before the Ankara Commercial Court (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi), requesting the defendants to reimburse the money which she had deposited with the firm.
9.  On 27 May 1998 the Ankara Commercial Court partially granted the applicant’s request and ordered the defendants to pay her TRL 942,000,000 with simple interest.
10.  Both the applicant and the defendants appealed.
11.  On 26 October 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 27 May 1998. The case was subsequently remitted to the Ankara Commercial Court.
12.  On 7 November 2001 the Ankara Commercial Court once again partially granted the applicant’s request and ordered Global A.Ş. and B.G. to pay her TRL 1,512,000,000 with simple interest.
13.  The applicant and Global A.Ş. appealed.
14.  On 10 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 7 November 2001.
15.  On 13 January 2003 the applicant requested rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision of 10 October 2002.
16.  On 11 April 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.
5.  On 21 February 2001 the Snizhne Court awarded the applicant 23,536.80[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH[) against the State-owned ]Udarnik mine in compensation for her husband’s death as a result of a work-related accident. Subsequently, the mine was reorganised into the Snizhneantratsyt State Company.
6.  The judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debt.
7.  Between February 2002 and December 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 11,135.
8.  On 18 January 2008 the applicant received the rest of the judgment debt.
9.  The applicant attempted to collect compensation from the debtor company for the delay in enforcement, by way of judicial proceedings; however her efforts were to no avail.